Oil and American Politics
Published in Estadao
(Brazil) on 28 June 2010
by Editorial Staff (link to original)
(Brazil) on 28 June 2010
by Editorial Staff (link to original)
Translated from
by Perola Vieira.
Edited by Mary Lee.
The catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill could have been an excellent opportunity for President Barack Obama to promote one of the highlighted points in his electoral campaign: limitation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through carbon credits negotiable on the market (cap and trade). As is clear, aside from petroleum consumption being one of the biggest sources of air pollution, oil exploration in deep waters can cause disasters of gigantic proportions. The U.S., like other countries, has to prepare for a post-petroleum era by investing more in biofuel, hydropower, solar, wind, and tidal energy.
The irony is that, in the U.S., the BP Deepwater Horizon platform disaster is producing the opposite of what one might expect: the Republican opposition has incited attacks on the president as revenge for Democratic harsh criticism of ex-president George W. Bush about Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Moreover, the health plan approved by Congress, a historic victory for Obama, provoked an intense mobilization of conservatives and those who call themselves libertarians, gathered in the Tea Party movement.
To go along with all this “electoral yeast," November elections are in sight, with choice seats in the House and Senate and state governorships [at stake]. Clearly, democrats are on the defensive, even those who have criticized the White House for failing to take, at first, a more determined attitude against damages caused by an oil leak that seems endless.
As if this wasn’t enough, the demonized BP is among the oil giants previously invited to provide advice to the Senate in drafting a new law on climate and energy. BP, formerly British Petroleum, before the end of April this year, was preparing to change their name again. Having invested in solar and other alternative energies, the British company launched a campaign to become known as Beyond Petroleum.
This becomes particularly annoying now for the conservatives, who oppose initiatives for the creation of carbon credits, which, in their view, would [negatively] affect the competitiveness of American industry. "No one has explored the iconography of fake environmentalism so well as BP,"* wrote Daniel Foster, in National Review (6/16), a known conservative publication. The columnist advises readers not to be deceived by green advertising from the company, which "hasn’t been [anything] more than an oil company tremendously successful in generating profits."*
The image of BP is literally in the mud, although the company has agreed to create a $20 billion fund to pay damages to people and businesses hurt by the leak, instead of paying dividends this year. As the biggest shareholders in BP are British citizens or investment funds, the British Prime Minister David Cameron made a phone call to President Obama in an attempt to soothe the White House.
Pressed on several fronts, the U.S. president was forced into a strategic retreat. In a 17-minute speech, broadcast on TV, no mention of carbon credits was made. Senators John Kerry (democrat) and Joe Lieberman (independent) are still fighting for legislation to hold down emissions of greenhouse gases. But apparently, this theme will play on until after the November elections.
This is bad news for all those who care about ecological issues. The U.S. — which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and performed short of expectations at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change — is among the largest emitters of CO2 in the world. If the U.S. were to adopt more advanced legislation against pollution, this might serve as an inducement for China — now the world champion in that category — to start thinking seriously about it.
* Editor's Note: These quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.
The irony is that, in the U.S., the BP Deepwater Horizon platform disaster is producing the opposite of what one might expect: the Republican opposition has incited attacks on the president as revenge for Democratic harsh criticism of ex-president George W. Bush about Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Moreover, the health plan approved by Congress, a historic victory for Obama, provoked an intense mobilization of conservatives and those who call themselves libertarians, gathered in the Tea Party movement.
To go along with all this “electoral yeast," November elections are in sight, with choice seats in the House and Senate and state governorships [at stake]. Clearly, democrats are on the defensive, even those who have criticized the White House for failing to take, at first, a more determined attitude against damages caused by an oil leak that seems endless.
As if this wasn’t enough, the demonized BP is among the oil giants previously invited to provide advice to the Senate in drafting a new law on climate and energy. BP, formerly British Petroleum, before the end of April this year, was preparing to change their name again. Having invested in solar and other alternative energies, the British company launched a campaign to become known as Beyond Petroleum.
This becomes particularly annoying now for the conservatives, who oppose initiatives for the creation of carbon credits, which, in their view, would [negatively] affect the competitiveness of American industry. "No one has explored the iconography of fake environmentalism so well as BP,"* wrote Daniel Foster, in National Review (6/16), a known conservative publication. The columnist advises readers not to be deceived by green advertising from the company, which "hasn’t been [anything] more than an oil company tremendously successful in generating profits."*
The image of BP is literally in the mud, although the company has agreed to create a $20 billion fund to pay damages to people and businesses hurt by the leak, instead of paying dividends this year. As the biggest shareholders in BP are British citizens or investment funds, the British Prime Minister David Cameron made a phone call to President Obama in an attempt to soothe the White House.
Pressed on several fronts, the U.S. president was forced into a strategic retreat. In a 17-minute speech, broadcast on TV, no mention of carbon credits was made. Senators John Kerry (democrat) and Joe Lieberman (independent) are still fighting for legislation to hold down emissions of greenhouse gases. But apparently, this theme will play on until after the November elections.
This is bad news for all those who care about ecological issues. The U.S. — which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and performed short of expectations at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change — is among the largest emitters of CO2 in the world. If the U.S. were to adopt more advanced legislation against pollution, this might serve as an inducement for China — now the world champion in that category — to start thinking seriously about it.
* Editor's Note: These quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.